Atlas Global Technologies v. Dell Technologies — Settled After 257 Days
Atlas Global Technologies LLC filed an eight-patent Wi-Fi 6 (802.11ax) infringement action against Dell Technologies and Dell Inc. in the Western District of Texas, targeting HE-LTF sequence generation in Dell’s AP and STA products. The parties resolved all claims within 257 days, with Atlas’s claims dismissed with prejudice and Dell’s counterclaims dismissed without prejudice.
Eight-patent Wi-Fi 6 assertion against Dell ends in negotiated settlement
On 12 May 2023, Atlas Global Technologies LLC filed suit against Dell Technologies Inc. and Dell Inc. in the Western District of Texas (Judge Alan D. Albright, Case No. 6:23-cv-00350), asserting infringement of eight US patents covering Wi-Fi 6 (802.11ax) high-efficiency long training field (HE-LTF) sequence generation. The accused products include Dell’s access point (AP) and station (STA) Wi-Fi 6 devices configured to transmit and receive HE-LTF symbols across channel bandwidths of 20 MHz, 40 MHz, 80 MHz, 160 MHz, and 80+80 MHz.
The case closed on 24 January 2024 — 257 days after filing — when the parties jointly announced a resolution. The court entered an order dismissing Atlas’s infringement claims against Dell with prejudice, meaning Atlas is permanently barred from relitigating these specific claims. Dell’s counterclaims and defenses were dismissed without prejudice, preserving Dell’s right to assert those positions in future proceedings if circumstances warrant. Each party was ordered to bear its own legal costs.
Resolution in under nine months is notably swift for an eight-patent Wi-Fi 6 case before Judge Albright, whose docket has historically attracted complex patent assertions. The dual-prejudice structure — plaintiff’s claims out with prejudice, defendant’s counterclaims out without prejudice — is a common settlement fingerprint and suggests the parties reached a confidential licensing or cross-licensing agreement, though the public record does not confirm terms. The absence of any fee-shifting order indicates neither party successfully argued exceptional-case status.
Filing to dismissal in 257 days
257 days — resolved faster than the median W.D. Texas patent case
What the with-prejudice / without-prejudice split means for each party
Plaintiff’s claims dismissed with prejudice
Atlas’s infringement claims are dismissed with prejudice, which is a final adjudication on the merits as a matter of procedural law. Atlas cannot re-file the same claims under the same patents against Dell in any US federal court. This is the strongest form of closure Dell could obtain short of a jury verdict, and it is the outcome a defendant typically negotiates for in a patent settlement to eliminate future re-litigation risk.
Permanent bar on re-filingDell’s counterclaims preserved via without-prejudice dismissal
Dell’s counterclaims — which could include invalidity challenges, non-infringement declarations, or inequitable conduct allegations — were dismissed without prejudice. This means Dell retains the right to reassert those claims in future litigation if the settlement breaks down or a new dispute arises. The asymmetric prejudice structure is a deliberate negotiating outcome, not a procedural default, and is consistent with a confidential settlement where Dell retains defensive leverage.
Dell retains counterclaim rightsEach party bears its own fees — no exceptional-case finding
The court ordered each party to bear its own attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses. Under 35 U.S.C. § 285, a court may award fees to the prevailing party in exceptional cases. The absence of any fee-shifting here suggests neither party sought or obtained an exceptional-case finding, which is consistent with a negotiated resolution where both sides had plausible positions. This is standard in patent settlements and does not signal weakness in either party’s case.
No § 285 fee awardConfidential terms likely include a licensing component
The public record discloses no monetary award, royalty rate, or injunction. The combination of with-prejudice dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims and each party bearing its own costs is a classic signature of a confidential patent license or cross-license agreement. Atlas, as a licensing-focused entity, would typically seek royalties as the primary remedy. The speed of resolution — under nine months across an eight-patent portfolio — suggests Dell elected early commercial resolution over protracted litigation.
Likely confidential licenseFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Atlas Global Technologies, LLC | Company | Wi-Fi 6 802.11ax patent licensor — holder of US9825738B2 and 7 related HE-LTF patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Dell Technologies, Inc. | Company | Dell Technologies Inc. and Dell Inc. — global PC, server, and networking hardware manufacturerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Alden G. Harris | Attorney | Counsel for Atlas Global Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Alejandra C. Salinas | Attorney | Counsel for Atlas Global Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Alexander W. Aiken | Attorney | Counsel for Atlas Global Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrea L. Fair | Attorney | Counsel for Atlas Global Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Blaine A. Larson | Attorney | Counsel for Atlas Global Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Elizabeth L. DeRieux | Attorney | Counsel for Atlas Global Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Eric James Enger | Attorney | Counsel for Atlas Global Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joseph S. Grinstein | Attorney | Counsel for Atlas Global Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kalpana Srinivasan | Attorney | Counsel for Atlas Global Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Max L. Tribble , Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for Atlas Global Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael F. Heim | Attorney | Counsel for Atlas Global Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Oleg Elkhunovich | Attorney | Counsel for Atlas Global Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Robert Greenfeld | Attorney | Counsel for Atlas Global Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | S. Calvin Capshaw , III | Attorney | Counsel for Atlas Global Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | T. John Ward , Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for Atlas Global Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | William Brown Collier, Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for Atlas Global Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Adam W. Kwon | Attorney | Counsel for Dell Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Alexander Werner | Attorney | Counsel for Dell Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Brian Christopher Nash | Attorney | Counsel for Dell Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Faye Paul Teller | Attorney | Counsel for Dell Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Gregory P. Stone | Attorney | Counsel for Dell Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Gregory T.S. Bischoping | Attorney | Counsel for Dell Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Heather E. Takahashi | Attorney | Counsel for Dell Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | J. Kain Day | Attorney | Counsel for Dell Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jing Jin | Attorney | Counsel for Dell Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Minkee Kim Sohn | Attorney | Counsel for Dell Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Peter A. Detre | Attorney | Counsel for Dell Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Peter E. Gratzinger | Attorney | Counsel for Dell Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Robert Emmett Bowen | Attorney | Counsel for Dell Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Vincent Y. Ling | Attorney | Counsel for Dell Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Zachary M. Briers | Attorney | Counsel for Dell Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Alan D Albright | Chief Judge | Texas Western District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The court’s dismissal order adopts the parties’ joint request verbatim, indicating no contested ruling — the outcome is entirely negotiated. The deliberate asymmetry (plaintiff’s claims out with prejudice, defendant’s counterclaims out without prejudice) is significant: it reflects a bilateral negotiation in which Dell obtained maximum future protection from re-assertion while Atlas preserved the integrity of its portfolio for licensing to other parties. The own-costs order confirms no party achieved prevailing-party status, consistent with a commercial settlement rather than a litigated result.
US9825738B2 and 7 further patents — Wi-Fi 6 802.11ax HE-LTF sequence generation
The eight asserted patents share a common technical focus: the generation and processing of High-Efficiency Long Training Field (HE-LTF) sequences in IEEE 802.11ax (Wi-Fi 6) communication systems. HE-LTF symbols are used in channel estimation — the mechanism by which a Wi-Fi device measures channel conditions to optimize data throughput. The patents cover the selection and application of HE-LTF sequences across multiple channel bandwidths (20/40/80/160/80+80 MHz) and multiple HE-LTF modes (1x, 2x, 4x), which are core to Wi-Fi 6’s multi-user MIMO and OFDMA efficiency gains. The underlying applications were filed between 2014 and 2017, covering the formative period of 802.11ax standardization.
The strategic significance of these patents lies in their alignment with mandatory 802.11ax standard features. If any claims read on standard-essential functionality, every Wi-Fi 6 certified device could be within scope — a consideration that dramatically expands the potential defendant universe beyond Dell. Atlas’s decision to assert all eight patents simultaneously against a single defendant suggests a portfolio licensing strategy designed to maximize settlement value and deter invalidity challenges. Companies shipping Wi-Fi 6 chipsets, access points, laptops, or enterprise networking equipment should treat this portfolio as an active enforcement risk.
Should you run an FTO against Atlas’s 802.11ax HE-LTF patent portfolio?
Any company designing, manufacturing, or integrating Wi-Fi 6 (802.11ax) hardware — including access points, client stations, laptops, routers, and embedded IoT devices — should assess freedom-to-operate against Atlas’s eight-patent HE-LTF portfolio. The claims target HE-LTF sequence selection and transmission across multiple channel bandwidths and modes, which are standard-defined behaviors present in all compliant 802.11ax implementations. A settlement with Dell does not create a license for third parties, and Atlas’s litigation history suggests ongoing enforcement activity.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and IP teams to map product features against the specific claim language of US9825738B2 and the seven related patents — including independent claim analysis, family member tracking across jurisdictions, and prosecution history flags. Eureka’s claim monitoring alerts you if Atlas files continuation applications that could extend coverage. Given the standard-essential nature of HE-LTF functionality, an FTO review is prudent before any Wi-Fi 6 product launch or major feature update.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9825738B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Wi-Fi 6 802.11ax patent infringement cases in U.S. district courts
PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.
What this case signals for the Wi-Fi 6 patent licensing landscape
Atlas’s eight-patent assertion against Dell illustrates the continued commercial value of 802.11ax HE-LTF IP and the risk profile for Wi-Fi 6 hardware vendors.
Wi-Fi 6 HE-LTF patents remain commercially enforceable against major OEMs
The rapid settlement confirms that Atlas’s 802.11ax HE-LTF portfolio had sufficient claim strength to bring Dell to the table within nine months. Any company shipping Wi-Fi 6 AP or STA products should assess exposure to HE-LTF sequence generation patents before the next product cycle. The eight asserted patents span multiple application families, suggesting broad claim coverage across channel bandwidths.
W.D. Texas remains the venue of choice for NPE Wi-Fi patent actions
Judge Albright’s docket continues to attract high-volume patent assertions. Filing in Waco with a large counsel team — Atlas retained four law firms including Susman Godfrey and Heim Payne — signals a well-resourced assertion strategy. Defendants facing similar cases in this district should expect early and aggressive scheduling, which historically accelerates settlement pressure.
Atlas v Dell — key questions answered
Atlas asserted eight US patents: US9825738B2, US9763259B2, US10020919B2, US10542526B2, US9628310B2, US9848442B2, US10327172B2, and US9912513B2. All relate to Wi-Fi 6 (802.11ax) HE-LTF sequence generation and processing across multiple channel bandwidths and HE-LTF modes in access point and station products.
The case was resolved by a joint settlement announced to the court on 24 January 2024. Atlas’s claims were dismissed with prejudice — barring re-filing — while Dell’s counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice. Each party bore its own attorneys’ fees and costs. No monetary award or injunction appears in the public record.
Dismissal with prejudice is a final, on-the-merits termination. Atlas cannot re-file the same infringement claims against Dell under these eight patents in any US federal court. This gives Dell permanent protection from re-litigation on these specific claims, which is typically a key negotiating objective for defendants in patent settlements.
Dell’s counterclaims — likely including invalidity and non-infringement defenses — were dismissed without prejudice, preserving Dell’s right to reassert them in future proceedings. This asymmetric structure is common in patent settlements where the defendant wants to retain defensive leverage (e.g., invalidity arguments) while the plaintiff obtains certainty that its licensing terms will not be relitigated.
Yes. Judge Albright’s Waco division has been one of the most popular venues for patent assertion entities due to its predictable scheduling and plaintiff-friendly track record. Filing an eight-patent case there with a four-firm plaintiff team signals a well-resourced assertion strategy. The docket’s pace — which typically accelerates claim construction and trial dates — is widely considered to increase settlement pressure on defendants, consistent with the sub-nine-month resolution here.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.